Choice

Life never was an unalienable right. It has always been qualified. The only unalienable or unqualified right is freedom from torture. The fact that in some circumstances the taking of another's life is permissible, does not mean that murderers are free to kill anyone.
Unalienable Rights are unalienable by one's existence, not by earning it, and are removed by extenuating circumstance. You, however, are saying one has to earn them which is not what an unalienable right is.
The fact that the Declaration of Independence was written during a time of capital punishment and not by idiots should tell you that your understanding of unalienable rights is wrong.
Again, you've dropped the rightful status of life as an unalienable right which is what murderers do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Unalienable Rights are unalienable by one's existence, not by earning it, and are removed by extenuating circumstance. You, however, are saying one has to earn them which is not what an unalienable right is.
The fact that the Declaration of Independence was written during a time of capital punishment and not by idiots should tell you that your understanding of unalienable rights is wrong.
Again, you've dropped the rightful status of life as an unalienable right which is what murderers do.
Rights exist only when respected. The DoI, though a fabulous and even futuristic document in its way, was written by an elite bunch of white slave owning traitors, who didn't believe what they were writing applied to anyone but themselves and their supporters. The closest thing we have to an objective statement of rights, and still not very close, is the UN Declaration on Human Rights. That covers everything in the DoI, and a bit more. It has a rather more illustrious pedigree than the DoI, being written in the aftermath of a war seeking to prevent others, rather than trying to justify a revolution.

The fact that unalienable rights are etched into your subconscious doesn't make them real. Sure the right to life is not unalienable since there are many circumstances when it can legitimately be taken away, sometimes from the totally innocent. When a right is qualified, it is not unalienable. You are claiming something which doesn't exist, which cannot exist, certainly not in your country. In particular the right to life does not apply to the unborn foetus or to those found guilty of capital crimes. I think that the former is a reasonable position while the latter is unreasonable. Presumably you feel the opposite. Neither of us believes in the unalienable right to life, whatever the DoI says.
 
There is a proposal in UK Parliament for abortion up to birth by choice.
I know Temujin is against it, but what do others think?
 
There is a proposal in UK Parliament for abortion up to birth by choice.
I know Temujin is against it, but what do others think?
I think it is an abomination. I think it is animalistic. I think it is demonic. I think it shows not how our society is evolving, it shows how we are devolving. We are devolving right back to the caveman days.

As a matter of fact, that is more a certainty than a thought.
 
Back
Top